United States of Subsidies

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Dec 2, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rdowns, Dec 2, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012

    rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    A series examining business incentives and their impact on jobs and local economies. Long but a very good read.

    Also take a look at their interactive map to see how much your state gives away.

    Business welfare good, people welfare bad. I can understand states and cities competing for business but throwing millions and billions at companies without promises in return is criminal.

     
  2. eric/, Dec 2, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012

    eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #3
    Not all business welfare is bad. Pretty basic economics. The problem is when companies making billions are given subsidies.

    But if you're going to say that all business welfare is bad, I would say all welfare is bad in general.

    But this is the problem with businesses and the government:

    But this will continue to happen so long as we use a two party system, and encourage the growth of government and discourage oversight and opacity.
     
  3. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    There is certainly a difference in that it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things if an individual business goes bankrupt, with an individual person its a bit different as you have to keep them going otherwise they will riot/protest.
     
  4. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #5
    So then we hand out welfare as ransom?

    Doesn't seem like a moral thing to do
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    Sometimes you're just giving people a helping hand, but you still can't just let them fail.

    What's the more moral alternative?
     
  6. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #7
    Same can be applied to businesses. Or anybody for that matter.


    Idk, not paying ransom to people who are threatening your life?
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    No, because business going under is healthy for the economy, you can't really do that with people.

    So what do you propose instead? Letting people starve?
     
  8. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #9
    I wish that all laws passed by Congress were rated on the degree to which they impact on the growth of the economy, change income inequality, change the environment, and change the deficit. If this were done by a independent organization or branch of the government (e.g., CBO), it would be easier to determine what is a corporate handout and what is genuinely a stimulus package. If this were followed up by checking of the accuracy of the rating and updating it, it would be easier to evaluate the performance of Congress. Right now I suspect that the public has no idea how bills passed in Congress influence job creation etc. I suspect the same is true for Congress.....
     
  9. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #10
    All business?


    Sure, why not?
     
  10. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #11
    All's fair in capitalism, so the conservatives say. ;) :rolleyes:

    If you are calling letting people starve moral, then I would suggest that your moral compass be re-examined. That is neither moral nor humane.

    BL.
     
  11. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #12
    The bidding war between states is essentially perpetual. They should be looking at other ways to attract business.

    I really like this quote from the article you posted.

     
  12. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #13
    Conservatives in the American sense aren't any more or less capitalist than the Democrats.

    But it's ok to be forced to help somebody exist?

    Also, did I say it was moral?
     
  13. Ariii macrumors 6502a

    Ariii

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Location:
    Chicago
    #14
    Yes, it is. The government has an obligation to do so. They would have a good reason to protest as well if they were being denied welfare.

    If you don't think it's moral, than why are are you saying the government should let people starve :confused:?
     
  14. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #15
    Why does the government have an obligation to give people food?

    And you believe it's ok to force people to do things?


    I'm just asking why the government shouldn't?

    And the government "letting people starve" implies they have moral obligation or duty to not let people starve, and to not let people starve by forcing others to feed them.
     
  15. Ariii macrumors 6502a

    Ariii

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Location:
    Chicago
    #16
    The government has an obligation to give people food that need it, even if it means that a tiny, tiny minority will get welfare when they don't qualify for it. People need food to exist. Everybody should have a right to existence.

    Because it's immoral.
     
  16. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #17
    Right now its 50M on food stamps. 1 in 6 Americans. What if it goes to 1 in 4? 1 in 3? When will you draw the line? At some point, there won't be enough taxes to pay for it. Morality has nothing to do with it.
     
  17. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #18
    Well, you were asked to provide a moral alternative, and your answer was to stop feeding people which you aknowledged would lead to people starving, so... yeah, seems you did present letting people starve as moral.

    And FWIW, I'm quite happy people are forced to drive on the same side of the road. I totally believe it's okay to force people to do things - depending on what that thing is. Some are okay, others are certainly not.
     
  18. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #19
    Welfare is basically paying someone not to be, or at least be less of, a nuisance to society. The premise for this is the assumption that the government giving you free stuff is preferable to you going out and stealing it. It's less of a moral/immoral issue than it is cost/benefit.
     
  19. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #20
    Because it's better for everyone if millions of people aren't so poverty-stricken that they are starving to death in the streets. Look at countries with extreme poverty and/or extreme wealth disparity and let me know how functional they are.

    People get forced to do things all the time. It's a trade off made for being part of a civilization.

    If 1 and 3 qualifies for food stamps we have a much, much bigger problem than just footing the bill.

    Getting a little more back to the OP, I think corporate welfare should basically be limited to one time loans to startups or one time incentives to get into an experimental field. I can't really think of any good reason for a company that does billions in revenue annually to need taxpayer help anymore than a private individual making millions needs taxpayer help. I know companies love to receive as much tax money as possible while paying as little tax as possible but it's just not sustainable in the long term.
     
  20. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #21
    This. Thank you for taking the time to describe succinctly the fault in the logic of his post.

    This still doesn't take away the point of my post.

    By the government? yes.. some useless words in the US Constitution.. We, the people, blah blah yadda yadda...

    See elistan's post.

    See the above about some words in the Constitution.

    BL.
     
  21. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #22
    It's called "workfare" and not welfare.

    Liberals oppose this for some strange reason.

    There is plenty of menial labor available, cleaning up cities, digging ditches, painting buildings, etc.

    Quit giving away money and make people work for it.

    It works everywhere its tried, but the US refuses to even consider it,
     
  22. bradl, Dec 2, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012

    bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #23
    Okay.. I knew there would be someone who would be too blind to my post that I'd have to spell it out completely.. I thought we would all be smart enough to realize it, but I was proven wrong, so here goes..

    No.. I'll let the words speak for themselves:

    Something a military man like yourself should have known, as you have sworn to defend it.

    As for the rest of your post, there is so much fail there, I won't even begin to go into detail. But I will say this. If there is a dictionary anywhere nearby you, I suggest you look up the word philanthropy. That's with a 'phil' as in 'collins', and an 'ant'. You'll be surprised at its meaning, and how well it has worked in this country, with such people like Andrew Carnegie, Warren Buffet and his son, Howard Buffet, and Bill and Melinda Gates.

    Get back to us after you have that knowledge dropped into your head and let us know how well 'quit giving money away' doesn't work.

    BL.
     
  23. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #24
    So the reason for the unemployment rate in the U.S. is because millions of people all decided to walk out on their jobs over the same time period? A severe case of job-itis just swept the nation and made formerly hard working, full time employees just decide to throw it all away?
     
  24. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #25
    No, I was pointing out an alternative at that point, not making a moral judgement on it.

    Seems kind of arbitrary doesn't it?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page